Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they complain, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. But that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary. History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when in fact they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author argues that mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes are necessary in order to restrict judges’ discretion in deciding sentences. Why is restricting judicial discretion necessary? Because, says the author, people who rely on their judgment are often arbitrary and irrational, and there’s no reason to think judges are any different. So we can infer that judges are likely to use their discretion arbitrarily and irrationally, hence the need to restrict it.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s statement that restricting discretion “is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary.”

A
People believe that they have good judgment but never do.
Firstly, the use of “never” here makes this much stronger than what the author actually says. Secondly, even if this was stated, the author’s claim about people’s belief in their judgment is not supported by anything else, so not the conclusion.
B
Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion.
Like (C), the author argues against this statement. Some judges believe this, but the author’s argument is designed to prove the opposite, that mandatory minima are a necessary restriction.
C
Judges should be free to exercise their own judgment.
Like (B), the author argues against this statement. The point the argument is trying to make is that judges’ freedom of judgment should be limited because they may be arbitrary and irrational.
D
Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.
This can be inferred from the author’s argument, but the idea that judges are often arbitrary and irrational acts as support for the claim that restricting judges is necessary. That makes this an implicit sub-conclusion, not the main conclusion.
E
Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.
This is a good paraphrase of the author’s conclusion. The argument leads us to believe that judges would likely act arbitrarily without restriction, thereby supporting this conclusion, that mandatory minimum sentences are a necessary measure.

24 comments

Combustion of gasoline in automobile engines produces benzene, a known carcinogen. Environmentalists propose replacing gasoline with methanol, which does not produce significant quantities of benzene when burned. However, combustion of methanol produces formaldehyde, also a known carcinogen. Therefore the environmentalists’ proposal has little merit.

Summarize Argument
The environmentalists conclude gasoline should be replaced with methanol. Why? Because unlike gasoline, methanol doesn’t produce a significant amount of benzene when it’s burned.

Notable Assumptions
The environmentalists assume the advantages of switching from gasoline to methanol outweigh the disadvantages. In particular, they assume the formaldehyde produced by methanol is no more harmful than the benzene produced by gasoline.

A
The engines of some automobiles now on the road burn diesel fuel rather than gasoline.
This is irrelevant. The environmentalists don’t imply a switch is only worthwhile if it applies to all vehicles on the road.
B
Several large research efforts are under way to formulate cleaner-burning types of gasoline.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t give any likelihood those efforts will be successful, nor does it say cleaner-burning gasoline would produce more or less benzene.
C
In some regions, the local economy is largely dependent on industries devoted to the production and distribution of automobile fuel.
This fails to distinguish between gasoline and methanol, both of which are discussed as automobile fuel. It doesn’t say a switch from gasoline to methanol would benefit these local economies.
D
Formaldehyde is a less potent carcinogen than benzene.
This supports the environmentalists’ proposal. It suggests burning methanol produces a less potent carcinogen than burning gasoline, which implies methanol may be safer than gasoline.
E
Since methanol is water soluble, methanol spills are more damaging to the environment than gasoline spills.
This weakens the environmentalists’ argument. It implies switching to methanol could backfire in the event of a spill, causing more damage to the environment than would gasoline.

74 comments